60

City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: 4 June 2013
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Name: Consideration of an appeal ofthe Planning Commission' s decision to deny a single
family residence at a site located in the multi-family residential (R-4) District (Blk 48,
Lot 19). The appellants are Peter Kimball and Kathy Campbell.
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish the 700 square foot single-family residence
at the rear of the property in order to construct a new one-story residence. The existing
residence was built in 1930's and is in need of substantial repairs. The proposed
residence is 1,143 square feet and is of a similar size and scale as the original.
Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal and approve Design Review (DR 12-26), Coastal
Development Permit, Use Permit (UP 13-6) and Variance (VA 13-1) applications with
the attached finding and conditions.
Important Considerations: General Plan Goal 3-2 states to "Preserve existing residential units
and encourage the development of new multi-family housing in the Commercial and R-4
Districts. "
Decision Record: On 10 April2013 voted 3-2 to approve the project. The project was denied
because it did not have the four necessary votes for the use permit.
Attachments:
Attachment "A" Project Plans & Data Table
Attachment "B" Findings
Attachment "C" General Plan Policies
Attachment "D" Appeal Application
Reviewed by:
Jason Str%!t/;y Ad:nistrator Date
61
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
MAYOR BURNETT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARC WIENER, SENIOR PLANNER
4 JUNE 2013
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION' S DECISION TO DENY A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT A SITE LOCATED IN THE MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-4) DISTRICT (BLK 48, LOT 19). THE
APPELLANTS ARE PETER KIMBALL AND KATHY CAMPBELL.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on Torres Street two northwest of Fifth Avenue in the Multi-Family
Residential (R-4) District. The lot is currently developed with a two-story (2 unit) duplex at the
front of the property and a one-story single family residence at the rear. The property does not
contain any off-street parking.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the 700 square foot single-family residence at the rear of
the property in order to construct a new one-story residence. The existing residence was built in
1930' s and is in need of substantial repairs. The proposed residence is 1,143 square feet and is
of a similar size and scale as the original. The duplex at the front of the property would remain
unaltered. The proposed project would require a variance since off-street parking cannot be
provided and a use permit for the proposed density of 32.67 du/acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on three separate occasions and it was
eventually denied on 10 April 2013. The Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the project, but it
was denied because it did not receive the four affirmative votes required for the use permit. In
summary, the Commissioners that voted against the project were concerned that the proposed
expansion of the dwelling would increase parking demand on a site that does not contain any off-
street parking. The Commissioners that voted for the project concluded that the minor expansion
would not increase the parking demand and they supported the proposal to improve the living
conditions of the residence.
62
Kimball/Campbell Appeal
4 June 2013
Staff Report
Page 2
During the meetings with the Planning Commission it was identified that the only location where
off-street parking could be provided is at the northeast comer of the property. The driveway
would require the elimination of two City oak trees and one on-street parking space. Only two
parking spaces could be provided on site, which would have to be in tandem and would require
the construction of a parking pad within the six foot setback of a redwood tree. There are several
trees that block the parking from being placed any further back on the property. Because one on-
street parking space would have to be removed there would only be a net gain of one parking
space.
The Commission directed the applicant to apply to the Forest and Beach Commission to have the
City oak trees removed, which would allow for the on-site parking. The applicant followed this
direction, but was denied by the Forest and Beach on 7 March 2013. The Forest and Beach
Commission concluded that the trees were an important aspect of the streetscape and the net
benefit of one additional parking space did not warrant the removal of the trees. The
Commission was also not supportive of placing a parking pad within the six foot setback of a
substantial sized redwood tree.
APPEAL
The property owner's representative filed an appeal on 18 April 2013. In the application the
appellant states that the denial is being appealed because the proposal to construct a new
residence meets the goals of the General Plan and Housing Element. The appellant also states
that providing two off-street parking spaces is not practical or viable due to the trees and lot size.
EVALUATION
Review Standards: The subject property is located in the Multi-Family (R-4) District and is
subject to the design standards of the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District for floor
area, height and setbacks (CMC 17.12.040). Other R-4 standards are defined in Section 17.12 of
the Zoning Code. Staff notes that a conditional use permit is required for the proposed density of
32.67 du/acre.
With the proposed new residence the site would be approximately 900 square feet below the
allowed floor area and I ,487 square feet below the allowed building coverage. The new
residence meets all setback and height requirements. The site is required to have five off-street
parking spaces, but contains none.
With regards to parking, there are two oak trees in the City right-of-way that prevent the
installation of a driveway on the north side of the property. As previously stated, the Forest and
Beach Commission denied an application to remove the two oak trees on 7 March 2013. The
applicant does not have the option for providing parking and has therefore applied for a variance.
63
Kimball/Campbell Appeal
4 June 2013
Staff Report
Page 3
Variance: CMC Section 17.38.020 establishes that the subject property is required to
have five off-street parking spaces (1 .5 per dwelling unit). The property currently does not
contain any off-street parking.
California State planning law allows for the granting of variances from zoning standards only
when there is a hardship inherent with the property (slope, shape, trees, etc.). CMC section
17.64.210 establishes findings that the Commission must make when granting a variance (See
Attachment B).
The two-story duplex at the front of the property limits options for off-street parking. There is an
open space to the north of the building, however, parking at this location could not be provided
without removing a significant tree that is located on City property. There are also several
significant trees behind the parking area that would have to be removed in order to add more
than one or two spaces.
Staff concludes that the conditions of the property, primarily the trees, present a physical
hardship that makes it infeasible to provide off-street parking. It should be noted that the density
of the property would remain the same with the replacement of the single-family residence and
the parking demand will not be increased from existing conditions. Staff supports the proposed
vanance.
Non-conforming Structures: CMC Section 17.36 state that "a lawful nonconforming structure
may be maintained, repaired or altered as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does
not increase the nonconformity" and "the demolition of any nonconforming building or structure
shall require that all new construction on the site meet all requirements for new buildings and
structures. "
The property is non-conforming with regards to parking, but the proposed structure would meet
the zoning requirements with regards to floor area, height, etc. The question arises as to whether
the structure itself should be considered non-conforn1ing due to the fact that the property does
not have sufficient parking. Regardless, staff is still recommending that the applicant obtain a
parking variance for the construction of the new dwelling unit given that there would be no off-
street parking on site. The Variance would be in effect for the life of the structures on the
property and would be null and void if the structures were demolished.
The two commissioners that voted against the project were primarily concerned that the new
structure would increase the parking demand and non-conformity. However, staff notes that the
existing residence contains two bedrooms and would be replaced by a new residence that also
contains two bedrooms. The new residence would have a modest increase from 700 square feet
to 1,143 square feet. Staff concludes that the parking demand would not be increased by this
project, thus the non-conformity is not being increased. It should also be noted that CMC
17.38.020 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the R-4 District, and does not
distinguish based on size of the dwelling unit or number ofbedrooms. Technically the parking
demand is not being increased with the construction of a slightly larger residence.
64
Kimball/ Campbell Appeal
4 June 2013
Staff Report
Page4
Design: The proposed residence is not visible to the street and at 1,143 square feet is modestly
sized. The residence has a craftsman style design and the applicant is proposing board and
batten siding, composition shingle roofing and fiberglass windows. A special condition has been
added that the applicant use unclad wood windows. The proposed residence will not create any
impacts to neighboring properties. Staff supports the overall design.
Summary: A Conditional Use Permit is required for this project because its density exceeds 22
du/acre (CMC section 17.08.040). The approval of a use permit is discretionary and requires
four affirmative votes from the City Council.
Staff supports the applicant' s proposal to demolish and rebuild the deteriorated dwelling unit.
The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code and the Variance is supported based on the
conditions of the property. Additionally, the project helps maintain the housing stock in Carmel
as encouraged by Goal 3-2 of the General Plan, which states to "Preserve existing residential
units and encourage the development of new multi-family housing in the Commercial and R-4
Districts. " As a separate attachment staff has provided other General Plan policies that support
projects that encourage preserving and maintaining Carmel's housing stock (See Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal and approve Design Review (DR 12-26), Coastal Development Permit, Use
Permit (UP 13-6) and Variance (VA 13-1) applications with the attached finding and conditions.
6
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

"
A
"

P
l
a
n
s

i

.

i

I

p
:

1

i
l
I

I

I

.

I

I

.

I

I
t

I
t

.

i

.
.

.
:

-
-
!
l
i
l

F
"
"
'
"

!

.

;

I

.

.
.

'

.
.

;
,
;

w
t
:
m
:
.
-

1
/
U
:
I
.T

0
1
,

1
1

P
E
T
E
R

D
A
V
I
S

c

2
t
3
0
o

"
'
f
'

<
;
.
.
.
/
>
<
.

.
:
.
.
.
q

!
"
!

t
.
I
I
Q
-
i
i
-
-
o
t
&

F

.
.
.
-
-
-
-

"
r
"
"
'

w
a
l
d
e
n

R
d

':
-
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

u
l
'
/
F
3

6
6
r --
I
--- ------. -- --- - ... ------- --.. . ----- -- -__ , _______ --. -- .... ... ..... ------...-.... -. -....... .. --- ----- - .. .. -------..-- --- --- --.-
LOT 17
,
' . - - /,////
I ' // ., .. ,,

1
xtsra.:c/ .. '.<</</.'/;
"' '<:E //,.. , .
. , u HOO. / < '/ 1 l
<////.'/////////. <' b'
.......... " ' '. '' '" -

, ... ,._,./_,//,, .. ,_...,..._._/// /,.// {1000') --, 'i.m ... , ........ ,,,,,, ___ - . II
" , ,. --- . j L., 1 ........ , -'/,.' // //, . ..... ... / .'L .. .. .... - I .
__ ,. _, ...- ,. ,.. , , , -_ l"l"7.!:. ,-,..,, 7 1
11

----- I - - - \>1... " . ' '>
""71 t "<. .. - ,_ "j _., < 'o \, :lJfijl canc:n.tt
.. '/ ... I ;, ,, '" _.,, ..... .-'1' ... -e-.. 1-1 polto II .... "'"("
'.//>'1 I r <i: "' .. - \ , 0 ...
. , ,, - ' "' - -; I -.
, .. /' ' ' .' / /o . '" ,___.,' ...., 3 - . ,. I
. - / ' ' .. ' . . . / -/' - . - ' ' '" . . .. /,....j ' . ... ,._. .. _ .. /._ .. ""---" ..... ,.,,., .. .. /,.-'/"> I
C..'\ .... , .. --- ' " ' ' / / ' ' ' ' . '
oreL ' /,., do - - "' 1'
1
/ '41
1
//
1
//
1
/ ) '\'
. << .. ,--"----, I . l
>>> ll,.. .- '\

' 1 ... ....,., I >:>//.f::'il:h{Afc /' /

1
' ..

V ' "/"'' ' ,. ' / ":JJ.,.. , '/ / USE / /' , -'
'/,, It -., ... ,.. , HOliSE///,-,..,.. ' pvMo '/./ // HO / /.',1
,. ' . .. . .. / _, , , .. . / . ' _, . . I . . / .. . . . / / // . . / / I
'/, :,., ! '///o///////////7, ////' //_/_ .... /// . .
" ' ' .. , '--- /, .. _,_ ., . ' .-, .,
,
.. / I'"'\ . LOT 19 .. // .. ,. //// //.' ./// .... Sj.... ! '/' // . .r:// ... ..-; ... /,.. /./;. ...- ,..-j
. - ' r /. ' ' ' / ' ' ' ' . ' , r ' ' / / '
/J '// / N , .. , .. ,., u / ' / . 4' ' . // 1/ ///0 .
// Q ...... , . / . . ...... . '.:L:L.L',.. !' . 44 ,. /// / ' . iF --,..r..
. ...... / . . . . , . .. / , . -f " "' 1 - - , , . I , / / ... ,/ ,/ .. .. / ,/ . ... & -, .. --- I 4$ 49.3
" . . ,.,_ ' . -"- .... - ',_- # ' - - -
/ ... 'zs /' -' c ,. , '.;,-,;l I 4 vtn '---1- / t ...
,. ' jr \ ' "' 0 I I 'f
./ ' ,, I< I , ,.ss
....... ir ... 0 ... .. ., -- - -- ' .
i"a
i
lB.
, _(!1. 6
;.....
.....
!.,..;

'''":.
j/i
....:;
0:

<< ! em -------;--.. - ----, > . ,.
t
' ,. ., ... --- '"'' J } " //" ,. h ' /" / '
'/ - --. h 7 / -r;-/ '/ ////////,. /// ///,1
7\.T' - . .. t I II. r-:r-;.-"7 ;.-,.. /// .... /,. /,//// / // / / /,../." .... '% ." ....... . . - i!"i ... "I . '"7/.....- , ..... .. _,. .. ,. ,.,c .. , .. .- ,. ,c .. ,,.,,
.; .' / ' .. ,
/.1 , /7/////// /////////// / ///// ' 'SuJLDINC
/J V ////-' ' ' . APART!t/EN1'
43.8
... i lt . "
::j \ LOT 2'1
'r
J
NOTES:
I
I J 1. dolwtrl u ANwrt#d.
I
t . jo"tAnl( or wd o ... "
.. otM,... ur ahtJ'Wf'\ /II" onl.,.
3. A- do.ta u ......, !.. puenfi<..U ( .... . )

Chock /wr- .t.r ... twt.. of,,... -lAin /VId

I .....,: r. \. "i- ,..,-Jtncat U. Ulcotiaon. oj
I
'(' '1) S J>Ulo.. c:u Cll\4& l f'ValiPM w. upn.uH
f-.... 1- Jut ol\d cHC'tmot. tillrtoj.
( \ / I TM":- mop OOI"""HtiV np ... f\U 0 n&nlfti . ,.""" ...... , ___ _
TOPOGRAPHIC M.4P
I Lo& 1 Jl&.oek <II. Cor""' ' '"'
Ca'l"n'\o&l. C4fVorrri&.
,._..,, . ..,
PETER KJJIBI./.L C>ld KAtHY C-u/PBEI.C-
I
\oto. , ... , V jJ mo.cS:: fr.J I'PW 'Pl WIZ. 7 flit - 13oat
\ . .r.-: ,. _,., 11. 30nP .!0 .. 7"'f'dutuocl Jm D. 1/.,.,, .. J/*f' LU:nod. l,.a.Jlll.
c...,.,l CtJlifof'fU&.
j t_ Scalo: r- 8' r.o. 2012 .

6
7

1
,1

'
t
,

p

f

!

t
t
u

p
t
:
:

.
.
.

,
;
i

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
-
.

4
6

'
-
"
'
f

"
'

D
\
O

C
I
\
I
.
o

U
I
2
.
.

f

.

.

6
8
I

I

l
t
f

J
!
l

i

r
t

l
_
1
i

1
-

r
c
)
r

-
f
:
=
!
:
:
N
,

4

.
.
$
<
;
a
.
)

_
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.

<
4
'

(
'
\
b
-
O
\
<
,
.
-
o
t
2
.
.
.

i

I

f

.
t

\

l

j

1

r

.

i

.
l
_

r

P
E
T
E
R

D
A
V
I
S

c

2
t
3
o
o

=

-
.

.

-
:
:
;

t
l
l
6

U
o
p
e
r

w
.
.

A
d

&
f
C
h
i
t
e
c
t

6
9

a
_

........::

0

.
.

.
:
.
.

'

.

I

.
.


.

.

I
.

,

I
"
"

I

.

'

;
.
.

.
.
.

c
..
,

-
'

'

I

l

u
N

I
N

.

'
.
:
''"
'

t

'

'

... .
:

\

p

t
f
;
:
\

'
J
'
f
.
'
f
:
'
F
T
-
,
'
'
-
l

-
7
0

f
.

.
.

.

J
.
.
.

- .

v

.
,
!
:
.
.

>
.
;

.
-
.
.
.
.
_

t
1

-
.
.
;

\
\
1

I

.
.
.

)
>
_

,
.

Q

.
.

J

1

.
.
.

!

,

.
.

-
.
.

'

1

1
:
.

-
-

,
.

- ,
_
.
,

i
"
'

(
"

'
1

t

;
:

'
1
'
0

I
!
.
;
.

.::
'

=

I

.
.

.
:
:

l

-

l

1

"

-
1
-
,
i

..t
,

,.:
., ,
.

'

.
-
:
l

:
:

:
:

.
.
.

.
.

r"
.,.
.
.
.
.

.

-
.

.-
7
1

s

\
)
;

-
-
j

,
.
.
_

-
-
r
-

.
_

.
.
.
.
.
.

-
.

.
.
.
.

,
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

j

'

.

'

:

f

"
'
'
t
t
v

.

.

'

!
c
-
'

'

.
,

.
_

'

.
.
.

1

t

y

.
.

'
,
.
)
.

"
'

,
.

:
:
r

,
:

.
'

.

.
.
.
.

.
.

<
.

'

I

I

I

I

.
.

I

.
.

.

I

t
i
.

f
:
.

c
r

r
u

N
.

I

,

.
.
.
.

.
,

.
.
.

:

.

\
.

I

.

t

-
,
'

-
.

.
.


-
-

.
.
.
.

!
'
"
'
'

I

c
:
:
.
.
.
-
.

-
-
-
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.

"
-

.
.
.
.
.
,
_

.
.
.

:

:
,
_
.
,

,
.
.
.
_
.
,

,
.
.

r
.

.

"

.

.

"
'
'

0
"
:

i

.

!

.

.
.

.

"
-
.
!
..t
..
:

.
.
.
.
.
.)
,
.
:
u
;

.
:
:
]
:

.

-
4

'
"

...
.

.
.
)

.

(
'",.>
:

.
.
.
;

,
I

.
.
I
(
.:

i
J

)

c
.
:
:

:
-
:
T
H

F
R
T

-
-
I

!

.
.
.

72
Attachment "A" Data Table (Kimball-Campbell)
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE (RC STANDARDS):
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 3,200 sf (80%) 1,844 sf(46%) 2,287 sf (57%)
Building Coverage 3,150 sf(70%) 1,220 sf (30.5%) 1,663 sf (59.3%)
Ridge Height (1 st/2n)
26ft. 14 ft. (original) 18ft. (new)
Parking Requirement 5 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces
Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed
Required
Front 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft. No Change
Rear 0 ft. 21 ft. 10ft.
Side Yard 5 ft. (min. 50%) 5 ft. (min. 50%) 5 ft. (min. 50%)
73
Attachment "B"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
DR 12-26/UP 13-6N A 13-1
Peter Kimball/Kathy Campbell
Torres 2 NW of 5th
Block 48, Lot 19
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Demolition Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of a
new residence on a property located in the Multi-Family Residential (R-4) District.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The property is located on Torres Street two northwest of Fifth Avenue
in the Multi-Family Residential (R-4) District. A determination of historic
ineligibility was issued for the property on 31 December 2012.
2. On 27 September 2012 the applicant submitted a Design Review application to
demolish and replace an existing dwelling unit at the rear of the property with a
unit that is 443 square feet larger. The project received a conceptual review by the
Planning Commission on 14 November 2012 and 9 January 2013.
3. At the direction of the Planning Commission the applicant applied to have two oak
trees removed that are located in the public right-of-way. The application was
unanimously denied by the Forest and Beach Commission on 7 March 2013.
Removal of the trees would have enhanced the feasibility of off-street parking.
4. The applicant submitted Variance and Use Permit applications on 26 March 2013
for final review by the Planning Commission. The project was denied by the
Planning Commission at the final review hearing on 10 April 2013.
5. A parking variance is required for the construction of a new structure since the
property is unable to provide on-site parking.
6. CMC section 17.08.040 requires the issuance of a Use Permit for properties in the
R-4 District with a density greater than 22 du/acre. The existing and proposed
density of the subject property is 32.67 du/acre.
74
DR 12-26/UP 13-6NA 13-1 (Kimball/ Campbell)
4 June 2013
Findings
Page2
GENERAL FINDINGS FOR ALL USE PERMITS (17.64.010).
1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the City' s General Plan.
2. The proposed use complies with all zoning standards applicable to the use
and zoning district.
3. Granting the use permit does not set a precedent for the approval of similar
uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City, or will be in conflict
with the General Plan.
4. The proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of
public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply,
communication facilities , police protection, and fire protection.
5. The proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare.
6. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not
conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be
located.
7. The proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety,
or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
FINDINGS FOR DECISION (VARIANCE):
1. The existing development and trees on the property and in the City right-of-way
create a hardship in providing conforming parking.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
3. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to public
health, safety or welfare.
4. The site conditions are not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable
the formulation of a general regulation to address such conditions.
5. The parking situation was not created by the applicant.
6. The variance approval is consistent with the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan.
75
DR 12-26/UP l 3-6N A 13-1 (Kimball/Campbell)
4 June2013
Findings
Page 3
7. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of
Carmel by the Sea.
8. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review
is required for potential public access.
9. While a parking variance is being requested, the property can still provide three
off-street parking spaces if one of the cars is parked in the front setback on the
driveway.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. All doors and windows on the new residence shall be constmcted of unclad wood.
DECISION: The Use Permit is approved with the finding and conditions stated above.
76
Attachment "B" continued
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel by
the Sea and Commercial Design Guidelines.
2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is
required for potential public access.
Standard Conditions
No. Condition
l. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits
authorizing the demolition of an existing residence construction of a new
residence. All work shall conform to the approved plans dated 3 June 2013 except
as conditioned by this permit.
2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local
R-4 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in
preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design
elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such
plans are submitted, such changes shall require separate approval by the Planning
Commission.
3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unless
an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed
construction.
4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to
the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for
compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code,
including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75%
drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system
set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City's recommended tree density
standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The
landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are
required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning
Commission.
5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and Beach
Commission; and all remaining trees shall be protected during construction by
methods approved by the City Forester.
6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If
any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction, the
City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may
require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger
than two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or
any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building
./
./
./
./
./
./
77
permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City
Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly
spread inside the drip line of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the ./
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the maximum
units allowed on a 4,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for
reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and
adoption by the City Council.
8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as ./
submitted on 3 June 2013 and approved by the City Council, prior to incorporating
changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining
approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writing
and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has
approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change
in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the
approved plans prior to final inspection approval.
9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no ./
higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15
watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.
10. The Carmel stone fat;ade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar N/ A
masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
the applicant shall install a 10 square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.
11. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have ./
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise
superficially applied, are not permitted.
12.
Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance. ./
13. Approval ofthis Design Study shall be valid only with approval ofthe Use Permit. ./
14. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ./
the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any liability;
and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in
connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or
other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall
cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in
any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of any
obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in
connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey,
California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such
actions by the parties hereto.
78
15. The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
./
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets or
the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the drainage
flow line of the street.
16. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a
./
demolition permit.
17. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings
that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include
./
applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the
use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess
drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm
drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the
storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.
18. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the
City' s Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of
./
60 points based on the Residential Green Building Checkli st.
79
Attachment "C"
General Plan: Housing Element
1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is designed to achieve the following:




Identify adequate sites for a range of housing types;
Assist in the development of adequate and affordable housing;
Address constraints to meeting the City's housing needs;
Conserve and improve the condition of existing housing;
A.3.1 Housing Stock
According to the U.S. Census and the DOF, housing stock in Carmel-by-the Sea
increased by 1 ,054 units from 2000 to 2008. The City is primarily built out and is
constrained by the lack of water to accommodate new development. Residential
construction in recent years involved mostly demolition and replacement of older
units with new, larger units. With very few vacant lots in the City and limited water
available to new projects, infill is the primary method of residential construction.
A.3.3 Age and Housing Stock Conditions
Age of Housing Stock
Age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general,
housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit need for repairs based on the useful
life of materials. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely
to exhibit a need for major repairs.
3.1 Goals, Policies and Programs
Goal G3-1: Preserve the existing residential housing stock. (Existing- Goal G3-1)
Policy P3-1.1: Continue and expand programs to assist homeowners in
maintaining and improving existing housing units. (Combined Existing Objectives
03-1 and 03-2)
Carmel-by-the-Sea's previous Housing Element was adopted in 2003. It set forth
a series of objectives with related policies under each of the following goals:
Goal G3-1. Preserve the existing single-family residential housing stock and provide
adequate sites for an increase in the number of housing units.
Goal G3-2. Goal G3-2: Preserve all existing residential units in the Commercial and R-4
Districts and encourage the development of new multi-family housing.
Goal G3-3. Provide adequate sites for the development of a wide range of housing types for
all citizens.
Goal G3-4. Protect the stability of residential neighborhoods by preserving the quality of
housing and promoting year-round occupancy.
80
A
II D \\.
. -\- t rr- c'n t"h .. tl t-
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
(FILING FEE: $295.00*)
KECElVED
APR 18 2013
CITYOt
CARMEL BY-'nffi..S.EA


MailingAddress: .. '(

Phones: Day:( ) 4:z;2..4:- ( ) 2c-::2Ji3-
Fax: ( Email:
Date Board heard the matter: fo -kf?{dL- \ \ :2
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working dllys foUowing the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the required filing fee as established by .City Council resolution. "
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
{f-) b1 {W OJf-
Lot(s): Block: \9_ APN: 0\6- O'l(p- 0
COMMISSION ACfiON BEING APPi.ED: \ls:L- {Jf---
LC 2 - (p I 2--'1- f
v f>s \:2 -t
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: ------- -----
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
81
G:ROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)
$295.00 fee* Receipt#:
Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to
impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORT ANI': If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and
inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
-